Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden

from the watch-it dept

If you have (a little less than) 2 hours this weekend, find a way to sit down and watch the mother of all debates about the NSA surveillance program, in which former CIA and NSA boss Michael Hayden and reporter Glenn Greenwald debate each other. Hayden had (in)famous law professor Alan Dershowitz on his side, and Greenwald had Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian on his side, and they both had their interesting moments, but this debate was all about Greenwald v. Hayden and they did not disappoint. Greenwald knocked it out of the park. Hayden came off as condescending and evasive, while Greenwald had facts readily at hand. Hayden said he wanted to debate on the actual facts, and Greenwald brought a bunch, which Hayden didn't respond to. Dershowitz kept insisting that it was all okay because the people at the NSA had proper motives (I don't recall where in the 4th Amendment there's an exception for motives). Meanwhile, Ohanian highlighted how the NSA is actually making us all less secure and massively harming the economy. The video of the debate is below, but you have to skip ahead to 29 minutes.

Glenn Greenwald debated the cons of mass surveillance very well. Alan Dershowitz, kept trying to hammer Grenwald about there being a "pretext" to surveillance, beyond simply terrorism. Implying that anyone who is against mass surveillance, feels the US Gov has an ulterior motive for wanting such a surveillance system. Beyond just wanting to use it to prevent terrorism.

Dershowitz, was basically trying to bait someone into a theoretical discussion about what those ulterior motives might be, and then label that person as a conspiracy theorist nut-job.

Fortunately, nobody took the bait. Despite Dershowitz's vehement attempts to get Greenwald to bite. Which would have allowed Dershowitz to steer the debate off course and into a new off-topic, unverifiable direction.

I'll bite onto Dershowitz's diversionary baiting tactic. I don't mind being labeled a nut-job. The US Gov does have an ulterior motive for mass surveillance. Their motive is to suppress dissent and to maintain their grip on power and authority.

I'm not just talking about in the United States, but also throughout the entire world. They use this surveillance to manipulate trade negotiations, as well as foreign relationships. Although, thanks to Edward Snowden, this tactic hasn't been working quite as well as it used too recently.

Mass surveillance is also used to track global finances. Chase bank closing down the bank accounts of porn stars is the most recent example. That's just small time though. Big potato financial surveillance includes making sure sanctions on Iran, N. Korea, and Russia stay in place. Even sanctions against bittorrent, Wikileaks, and whoever else the US Gov feels like targeting because someone rubs them the wrong way.

So Dershowitz is 100% correct. There is a pretext to mass surveillance. That pretext is the ability to impose US power, will, and authority across the entire globe, using non-military subversive means. Exactly like it's currently doing to Russia, or anyone else who refuses to go along with Big Business and the US Executive Branch's plans and global aspirations.

Of course, I'm just a crazy nut-job wallowing in my own conspiracy theories. ;)

Re:

"Alan Dershowitz, kept trying to hammer Grenwald about there being a "pretext" to surveillance, beyond simply terrorism. Implying that anyone who is against mass surveillance, feels the US Gov has an ulterior motive for wanting such a surveillance system. Beyond just wanting to use it to prevent terrorism.

Dershowitz, was basically trying to bait someone into a theoretical discussion about what those ulterior motives might be, and then label that person as a conspiracy theorist nut-job."

To be fair, Greenwald screwed up there. He did imply that because the mass surveillance program has so far been ineffective in fighting terrorism, those implementing it must be using terrorism as a pretext. Greenwald assumed that because it's ineffective, those implementing it must know that it's ineffective. The problem with that is that people (everyone, in fact) believe things that aren't true, all the time. In fact, it's even possible that they know the program has so far been ineffective but believe it may still prove useful in fighting terrorism at some point in the future, much like someone who's been buying lottery tickets for years continuing to buy them on the chance that they'll get lucky in the future. In fact, if I had to venture a guess as to what's going on inside their heads, I would guess that "maybe we'll get lucky in the future" and "if there's even a small chance this could help, it's worth it" is exactly what they're thinking.

The problem for Dershowitz is that Greenwald's anti-mass surveillance argument didn't depend on his claim "terrorism is a pretext" being true. Dershowitz largely ignored Greenwald's good arguments and got fixated on his sole bad one. It's hard to know what exactly was going on inside Dershowitz's head but I've narrowed his error down to one of two possible fallacies: the appeal to fallacy fallacy or the ad hominem fallacy. So either "your claim that 'evolution is true because the sky is blue' is fallacious therefore evolution must be false" or, as you stated, "Greenwald, you're a crazy conspiracy theorist therefore surveillance must be awesome."

Re: Re:

if i had to 'guess' (which is ALL that is left to us, since REAL gummint oversight of OUR alphabet soup spook orgs is IMPOSSIBLE, and i'm CERTAIN there is no problem with that), i would say that there will be a certain percentage of 'twue bewievers' and boy scouts who actually DO believe that tripe, MOST of the real players know that your pollyanna version of contemporary politics is EXACTLY what they want sheeple to believe instead of the awful truth: they ARE corrupt, and the system IS to surveil us all, and all the rest is window-dressing and bullshit...but that's just a guess...

If you can't sell the steak, sell the sizzle

Lawyers get paid to do exactly that, and in this one respect, the stream of BS from Dershowitz did not disappoint; I expected no less from him. If he had been allocated 8 hours I'm sure he could have kept babbling nonsense to fill the time.

Re: Common Sense

Just like the last Presidential debates where Obama got schooled by Romney. Obama was use to the softball pitches the liberal media gives him and was woefully unprepared for someone with a deeper understanding of the issues. This after Obama spent 4 years as the President? The funniest part was after the second debate the liberal media only talked about how he didn't get slaughtered as bad.

Disappointed that Glenn and Alexis didn't pounce on the opportunity to include that the NSA collects information three hops from anything that is in their eyes "suspicious",and that the NSA has actively subverted and weakened everyones security through manipulating RSA.

I also think that Alexis was a tad unprepared for the direction the discussion went.

Re:

I was also disappointed when Hayden argued about the Yemen safe house scenario - when he said "we've got the number used by the safe house in Yemen, all we need to do is to collect all the phone info in the US, then search it for which US numbers called the Yemen safe house" (paraphrased) - Greenwald could have easily turned it around and asked why the NSA couldn't do it from the other end? Beg borrow or steal (they are an intelligence outfit, right?) the telecom records in Yemen for that phone number and find out which numbers it had called. That would yield not only any numbers in the US, but probably other safe houses in various other countries as well. And all without any sort of bulk data collection.

Re:

Thanks for the share. Techdirt should do more "entertainment" imho. Sharing videos, that is. I watch videos of talks, conferences etc... every day. There are plenty of really great ones out there that are topical to Techdirt.

Greenwald's keynote at 30c3.Jacob Appelbaum's talks on Tor.Cory Doctorow on copyrightEven the topical Weev... at defcon back in the day or his TRO LLC interview on msnbc.

This is my type of entertainment. Thanks. Will grab a pizza and watch it later.

Also... youtube link: I usually download for adding to a playlist. That livestream said 2GB filesize (probably just not stated in header)with a 40KB/S download speed. (youtube can get max download speed and the file size is known at under 300MB)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1tw3mEOoE

Glenn was fantastic, especially with giving them counter-points with actual data.

Alexis was too repetitive, and pretty vague, too. He kept saying the surveillance undermines Internet security, but he didn't say HOW, other than the very first example with the locks. He should've given more examples like that if he was going to keep repeating that point.

Re:

The sad part is Alexis is right, he just showed up for the wrong debate without enough facts to back him up. Glenn was obviously well-prepared. Alexis was shooting from the hip and it showed.

Alexis was trying to get at how discouraging encryption and undermining internet security by keeping security vulnerabilities hidden as "exploits" rather than revealing them so they can be patched hurts ALL internet security. That just wasn't what the other three people showed up to debate. They kept talking about bulk metadata's legality and effect on the economy and people and he was trying to discuss how weaking the internet's infrastructure to support these programs hurts all security. He just wasn't able to work it into the greater debate happening and ended up being out of his depth.

Which is too bad because it's a part of the greater debate which gets left out too often.

Re: Re:

Snowden had exactly the same issue with the TED talk. Interview, really.

Too much important stuff to say and the questions asked were lightweight and easy to imply ... "well duh" in his own head, sorta ignore it and continue on talking about the important stuff but forgetting to transition back on point or to tie it in.

Greenwald is a seasoned reporter and speaker with knowledge of the transitions needed to join, ignore then return to point, tie in multiple themes to a story etc...

I still haven't watched it yet. I will now. Ordered my pizza. I do know what you mean though. Being right is SEEMINGLY lost by the way the message is transmitted.

Honestly though. I think people are socially smarter than we think. Won't ignore him because it wasn't delivered in a satisfactory way. You notice things like "person answers the wrong question" but the answer given still sinks in so long as it's not completely stupid or avoidance.

Death of the Constitution and liberty

Alan said it best. [paraphrased] It is better that people have their liberty removed so that we can protect them.

The very reason for the 4th is to prevent that exact line of reasoning. Why? Because government will always abuse their power and authority in one fashion or another to gain economic or political advantages.

If a cop follows you on the highway long enough, they will eventually catch you in a mistake, especially if you are nervous. If that cop is corrupt, they will just lie to pull you over than then receive near unquestioned integrity when you challenge that in court.

Mass Surveillance allows the government SELECTIVELY use information to paint you as a terrorist in a court of law 'as desired' to goad an ignorant jury (which are plentiful) into convicting an innocent person that is only there because a politically powerful person decided it was time to end their liberty for personal, political, or economic reasons.

The cost of mass surveillance is more than a free society can bear. Because it is not a free society on that merit alone.

Chose... Liberty? or Surveillance? Because of the corruption of man in authority will never allow these 2 to coexist. EVER!!!

It is directed to unreasonable searches and seizures, and as decided in 1979 by the USSC in Smith v. Maryland the collection of information via pen registers was not a search for constitutional purposes; i.e., the 4th Amendment did not pertain.

Obviously one district court judge has issued an opinion in which he provided his rationale why he believed Smith v. Maryland should not be viewed as controlling precedent. Perhaps his view will ultimately prevail, but as things now stand his view is an outlier that does not reflect the holding in Smith v. Maryland.

Re:

It is directed to unreasonable searches and seizures, and as decided in 1979 by the USSC in Smith v. Maryland the collection of information via pen registers was not a search for constitutional purposes; i.e., the 4th Amendment did not pertain.

Key phrase from this..."decided in 1979." In 1979 the hot new computer was the Atari 400/800, running at a wopping 1.79 mhz. By comparison, the graphing calculator I used in high school from 1998-2002, the TI-83, ran around 6 mhz. My current watch (Pebble Smartwatch) runs around 120 mhz. So in 35 years a watch has about 67 times the processing power of the fastest personal computer.

If you honestly believe that the scenario presented in Smith v. Maryland has any relevance to bulk metadata collection, well, you may be correct from a legal standpoint. But from a rational one? Sorry, you've crossed over into the looney bin.

Re: Re: Re:

The point you raise is obvious, but it does not address the legal holding in Smith. You are focused on what is essentially scale, and not on the underlying basis for the Smith decision, which was expectations of privacy with respect to information voluntarily released to third parties. It is this hurdle that would have to convincingly be overcome in order for Smith to be distinguished.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

But that's the line of reasoning that doesn't make any sense. Of course there's an expectation of privacy on information voluntarily released to third parties. I give my mail to the Post Office. Should I assume the employees and/or government are going to read it? If I put personal documents in a bank's safety deposit box, would it be irrational to assume it's not going to be read through?

If it's assumed that all online interaction has no reasonable expectation of privacy, why do we have passwords? Why not just let everyone access everything? After all, we don't expect anyone to restrict that access, right?

Like I said, from a legal standpoint, you are correct. The Smith decision applies to bulk metadata collection because scale is not a factor to whether or not a specific action is legal or illegal. If it's illegal to one person, it's illegal to a million...if it's legal to one person, it's legal to everyone, according to the law.

But from a logical standpoint, from a real-world effects standpoint, it's absolutely retarded, and completely flies in the face of common sense. That's why the decision had to be secret...if it was open, it was sure to be challenged. It was sure to be challenged because it's bonkers.

Maybe an example will help. Take the following silly logic game that presents the following:Person 1: Are you in Texas?Person 2: No.Person 1: Are you in New York?Person 2: No.Person 1: The you must be someplace else.Person 2: Right.Person 1: Well, if you are someplace else, then you aren't here.Person 2: Uh, what?

Sure, it works from a technical, what-these-words-mean standpoint. But from a logical standpoint it's clearly flawed reasoning. And this flawed reasoning is allowing for the government to take all your data without cause or due process. And there's nothing you can do about it, because (drum roll)...you're not here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The exterior of an envelope contains information specifically enabling a communication contained in the envelope to be routed correctly. Much the same can be said for internet addresses, telephony data, etc. They are all necessary predicates for the correct routing of the communication.

Importantly, Smith does not pertain to the contents of the actual communication, which contents are almost certainly believed by most to be associated with a reasonable expectation of privacy for which the 4th Amendment has applicability. The same can be said for communicative expression using devices employing current technology.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The exterior of an envelope contains information specifically enabling a communication contained in the envelope to be routed correctly. Much the same can be said for internet addresses, telephony data, etc. They are all necessary predicates for the correct routing of the communication.

Yet the information is being provided to the postal service as part of the transaction of sending the communication, it is not being published in the local newspaper or posted on a litfass column. It should be considered private between the customer and service, and a warrant should be required from outside parties to access that information.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your comment begs the question "Why should the address on an envelope be deemed a confidential communication? Is there a relationship of strict confidence between a service provider, here the USPS, and one who deposits mail in a mail box? We say that one who leaves their house and meanders about town has no legitimate expectation of privacy since cameras, people and others who may observe their meanderings abound, and certainly none of them can be viewed as standing in a confidential relationship with the meanderer. The point to be made is that persons in the employ of government and all others interface with persons who regularly and routinely communicate varying degrees of information, some of which may in some way convey what later proves to be quite useful information for specific purposes, as a normal incident of moving around within open society. Advocating or asserting that many, many of these communications are confidential simply denies that they are necessities of life for those who wish to live in a society that is free and open. Taken to its logical conclusion, much of what you seem to want declared confidential would bring social interchange to a virtual halt, and I certainly see how that would bode well at all. Quite the contrary.

This does not, of course, mean that merely because some communicative content must be disclosed in for ordinary activities to take place means that all accompanying content is likewise ripe for the taking. Listing your address on an envelope forwarding your paycheck is a necessity. It will not get there without it. As for the actual check itself, payor/payee/amount/bank/routing/account information are totally unnecessary for your check to show up in your mailbox. Unless you could care less if you ever receive a check, it is quite unlikely you could successfully argue any reasonable expectation of privacy about your address. In contrast, of course, is what is in the envelope you receive.

Thought about this way, there seems to be little difference between what can be seen on an envelope and what can be seen via a pen register. Each reveals information that must necessarily be disclosed to ensure a communication properly transits from Point A to Point B. The substantive contents of each (the letter, the actual phone conversation, etc.) are quite another matter indeed, and it is at this juncture where the NSA begins to have its hands tied.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Advocating or asserting that many, many of these communications are confidential simply denies that they are necessities of life ...

I fail to see a connection between whether something is confidential and whether it is a necessity of life; certainly not so as to make them mutually exclusive.

Again, posting a letter is not the same as walking out the door into the street. If I ask Fred to give a letter to Mary, that is not a public transaction -- Fred is acting as my agent per what agreement we've arranged. He is not a third party to the transaction and, though he may be a third party to the message, he is certainly not the "public". If he requires that I provide him with certain information to assist him in his duties, that information is still between him and me; there has been no public disclosure.

Taken to its logical conclusion, much of what you seem to want declared confidential would bring social interchange to a virtual halt, and I certainly see how that would bode well at all. Quite the contrary.

I am not saying such "pen data" information should be completely off limits to the government, merely that it should require a warrant.

The same technology that facilitates recording and accessing such information also facilitates rapid obtaining of proper warrants. If there is current not the capability for law enforcement or government agents to obtain a warrant in a matter of minutes then I would say it'd make more sense to spend money implementing such an infrastructure, rather than spending billions of dollars building facilities and employing personnel to intercept and record the particulars of every communication that ever takes place on the entire planet.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Section 215 has been reported and acknowledged as comprising what is essentially the equivalent of pen registers, but, obviously, much faster (you can thank the normal progress of technology improvement for this). Telephone numbers calling, receiving, date, time and duration are downloaded to NSA servers. It does, of course, raise concerns when what is reported to be all calls in the US having this data recorded (I accept, in the absence of contrary evidence, that actual conversations are not being recorded. I am not inclined to presume the worst just because it may be possible.). Even minimization procedures and warrant procedures to not seem to satisfy those who are most adamant about privacy preservation. This is quite easy to understand, but at the same time I wonder how they would craft a solution that allays their concerns. The system the seem to advocate is the 19th/20th century approach that is simply unable, by huge orders of magnitude, to keep up with the rapidity of 21st century technology.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think Hayden was misunderstood. What he meant to say was:

“If," ["the management consultant"] said tersely, “we could for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy. . .”“Fiscal policy!" whooped Ford Prefect. “Fiscal policy!"The management consultant gave him a look that only a lungfish could have copied.“Fiscal policy. . .” he repeated, “that is what I said.”“How can you have money,” demanded Ford, “if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn't grow on trees you know.”“If you would allow me to continue.. .”Ford nodded dejectedly.“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut."Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down.“So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances."The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd.”

Leaf, meet flamethrower. Flamethrower, leaf. Now, make like a tree and get out of here.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I made this point the other day in a different article but is relevant here so I will make it again. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for information placed in the custody of third parties and that means that the 4th amendment protections requiring a warrant do not apply, then every person who rents a house or a home from a third party has no protection the 4th amendment requiring law enforcement to get a warrant to search the premises as they have entrusted their belongings to a third party who owns the property and has access to the premises. Does that make any sense whatsoever to you? Please point to the section of the 4th amendment that says that reasonable has anything to do with 3rd parties. There isn't one. Smith v. Maryland was wrong in 1979 and it is wrong today.

Re:

Interestingly, Hayden denies Snowden had access to the "operational network" that would allow access to this data, but a former collegue of Snowden stated that he was given "full administrator priveledges, with virtually unlimited access to NSA data." Sure, it may have been illegal for him to do it, but it was technically possible...which is the "technical authority."

Either way, Hayden's assertation that "only 22 people" have access to this database (which begs the question of why they have training slides, which were the original leaks, to train these 22 guys) is more troubling to me. Who watches these 22 people? Themselves?

"Policy" is not a safeguard. Policy is just a rule, like a law, and laws are broken all the time. It's agains the law to steal, yet virtually everyone uses locks for to protect their stuff.

Re:

Always remember to look for the weasel words* when dealing with any statement made by the NSA or their defenders, in this case 'authority'. One of their favorite tricks is to claim that they don't have the authority to do something, completely sidestepping whether or not they have the capability to do it.

The trick here is the idea that if they don't have the authority to do something, that means they won't do it, ever, and so whether or not they have the capability doesn't need to be discussed.

However, as they have shown time and time again, whether they can do something is just as, if not more important, than whether or not they technically are or are not allowed to do it, because if they can do something, and can come up with a decent enough(for themselves) justification for it, odds are they will.

I have to agree with the polling as far as arguments go. I'm sorry, I respect his position, but from a debate perspective Alexis was atrocious. He was nothing but repetitive. That being said... this debate was rather like a game of chess, with one person reading their strategy out of a manual, just like their last host of games.

Their opposition knows their strategy, know's their moves play by play, and openly WARNS them in the beginning they need something new by undermining their key argument... and you know... for a brief moment I respected Hayden. Notice in his first rebuttal he starts... STARTS... by distancing himself from the terrorist argument. For about two scentances... then he jumps RIGHT onto the bandwagon... right alongside his co-debator... and they stuck to it. After the argument had been undermined, and without even recontextualizing.

Greenwald... was brilliant. Egotistical, a little, yes. But its not undeserved, if perhaps a little out of place. He was insanely prepared, very on topic and for the most part hitting back with solid facts and citations rather than vague concepts such as trust, terrorism, or vulnerability. That my friends and foes alike, is confidence.

Oh, and arguments aside as this is a debate, the part I felt most offended was when Hayden emotionally and boisterously 'finished his statement' well past his alloted time by outright ignoring the mediator. I don't care how little I agree with you, I enjoy listening to a debate. But do observe the rules aye? That was just plain rude.

TL;DRAlexis was infuriatingly repetitive, Greenwald was brilliant, Team Surveilance needs a more adaptable set of arguments than vague undefined threats and promises of trust.

Re:

Hayden's opening statement was weak as hell. Infuriating. "Is mass surveillance OK? Well, to answer that you really need to know what kind of surveillance you're talking about...people are totally getting the wrong idea about what we do"

well then. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TELL US WHAT KIND OF FUCKING SURVEILLANCE YOU'RE DOING. MAYBE WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN THE "WRONG" IDEA ABOUT IT IF YOU HAD FUCKING TOLD US IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Re:

Absolutely. We should publicly announce for worldwide disclosure detailed information about everything we do in the area of intelligence collection. Perhaps hourly tours with show-and tells and real time demonstrations of actual collections would help meet some of your advocacy objectives.

This would be such a breath of fresh air that surely we can count on all foreign intelligence organizations to reciprocate as they too experience kumbaya moments.

Re: Re:

This is a strawman. He never asked how they were doing the surveillance. Everyone knows the intel community can, for example, collect radio communications. Some of the basic techniques and theory is unclassified. Does that knowledge alone prevent you from having your radio communications collected? Nope, we still have that capability and still utilize it.

Here's the thing. These mass surveillance programs don't really affect terrorists. Any one of them with half a brain knows there's the potential for their communcations to be recording and are already prepared for it. The only ones that didn't figure this out are probably already dead.

During the interview Hayden never really explained why, if the bulk metadata is only being used for targeted purposes, that targeted techniques were insufficient.

By your logic we shouldn't have ever let the American public know we attacked Iraq. After all, if the Iraqis knew we were planning to attack, they could defend! They could prepare counters! Instead let's have a completely secret war because "operational security."

But we didn't do that, and we shouldn't have, because the American people need to know what their military is doing. Guess what? Troop movements in Iraq, tactics being used, and other operational information was classified and not released to the public.

So, why not release the general information (we're massively gathering data on all Americans) but keep out the actual techniques used? Why not explain, in detail, the reason why these programs must exist?

Oh, right. Because they knew the public would be upset and now they are stuck having to retroactively convince us to toss out our rights rather than do it behind our backs.

That law man was a Dick. Typical lawyer, trying to "gotcha" Greenwald on a technicality over one fucking word. Talk about being anal. His aim was clearly to discredit, not to debate.

Anyhow... Was funny when Hayden dun goofed and forget he wasn't in America. He still didn't resolve it by claiming only outside the 5eyes are"foreigners". Especially when there is a truly international viewership...Doh

The thing that struck me the most about Hayden and Dershowitz's arguments was that they kept trying to imply that Greenwald was calling for an end to all surveillance whatsoever which is something he clearly has never advocated. It seems that they were trying to redefine the debate in Boolean terms where it was either bulk surveillance or no surveillance at all. Dershowitz especially tried to hammer Greenwald with this which came off as if he showed up to a completely different debate than everyone else was.